Patent: Non-L RF Mount zoom lenses

AJ

EOS 7D MK II
Sep 11, 2010
605
10
I don't think Canon have released a truly BAD lens regardless of target market for a long time. Their cheapest EF lens, the 50mm f/1.8 STM is a superb optical performer for example.
Probably the mediocre-est lens that Canon has on the market right now is the EF 75-300 f/4-5.6. It's bundled as a kit lens with lower end cameras. It was first released some time ago, though.
 

maxfactor9933

EOS M50
Apr 18, 2018
36
6
Malaysia
1000mm ff equivalent reach w/o the teleconverter in a hand holdable lens. This will be interesting for sports and wildlife when paired with the new micro 4/3 camera. If one doesn’t need large prints (and only a few really do), this will be a great combination. For me, I would have to completely give up my Canon gear to afford changing over to Olympus. That would be difficult. :unsure:
I Put this lens beside Nikon P1000 mega zoom point and shoot. nowhere near to any professional camera
 

BeenThere

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 4, 2012
818
150
I Put this lens beside Nikon P1000 mega zoom point and shoot. nowhere near to any professional camera
I will wait for some reviews before deciding. I think this is just a development announcement, so it will be awhile before it’s available.
 

degos

EOS 80D
Mar 20, 2015
123
63
RF 50-240mm f/4-5.6

Finally a lens that breaks out of the 70-200 obsession. Finally.

Who on Earth finds 70mm useful? It's neither one ( 50mm ) nor another ( 85mm ).
 
Reactions: illadvisedhammer

keithcooper

EOS 7D MK II
I will wait for some reviews before deciding. I think this is just a development announcement, so it will be awhile before it’s available.
No, it's not even that - it's a patent application, not an announcement as such.
Remember that such applications often show specific novel technical elements that may show examples that may be the basis for a product at some point...
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,112
448
No, it's not even that - it's a patent application, not an announcement as such.
Remember that such applications often show specific novel technical elements that may show examples that may be the basis for a product at some point...
Absolutely, we often never know when a patent or just parts of one go into a product. Some of the patents are for process improvements that improve the process for applying a lens coating. Nothing about the lens changes, but the coating may be more durable, or have less rejects and therefore cost less.

You can usually guess if a patent is for a high end product or a entry level, a 50-250 sounds a lot like a APS-C lens, for example.
 

andrei1989

EOS RP
Sep 1, 2014
327
14
29
Give me smaller, more lightweight RF 100-400 and I'm taking it.
physics might object


Absolutely, we often never know when a patent or just parts of one go into a product. Some of the patents are for process improvements that improve the process for applying a lens coating. Nothing about the lens changes, but the coating may be more durable, or have less rejects and therefore cost less.

You can usually guess if a patent is for a high end product or a entry level, a 50-250 sounds a lot like a APS-C lens, for example.
i believe that discission was regarding the (wrongly posted) development announcement for the olympus 150-400
 

keithcooper

EOS 7D MK II
Absolutely, we often never know when a patent or just parts of one go into a product. Some of the patents are for process improvements that improve the process for applying a lens coating. Nothing about the lens changes, but the coating may be more durable, or have less rejects and therefore cost less.

You can usually guess if a patent is for a high end product or a entry level, a 50-250 sounds a lot like a APS-C lens, for example.
Just checked the patent again and all of these are full frame short back focus (at the wide end) so RF full frame style
 
Reactions: GMCPhotographics
Aug 22, 2010
1,517
204
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
RF 50-240mm f/4-5.6

Finally a lens that breaks out of the 70-200 obsession. Finally.

Who on Earth finds 70mm useful? It's neither one ( 50mm ) nor another ( 85mm ).
Yes I agree in the context of a standard zoom lens. A 24-85mm f2.8 is far more useful to me than a 28-70 f2 or a 24-70 f2.8. But in a telephoto zoom context, I find the 70-100 range very useful because of the lack of that range on the smaller standard zoom. I tend to find that a 24-70 is actually closer to 65mm on the long end. So the extra range on the tele zoom is a welcome addition and frames slightly longer than the 70mm marking on both lenses. I often run with a 135 f2.0 L instead of the 70-200 f2.8 LIS II because it's a lot smaller and discrete. Most of the times that I need a 200mm...I can use the 135 and walk the difference. I also find the focal length breaths less so as I get to MFD, the prime retains it's focal length better than the zoom, so again the prime frames better at shorter focusing.
If I need something over 200mm, I tend to use either my 70-200 with a 1.4x tc or I break out my 400mm f2.8 LIS...so I guess we all have our needs and compromises.
Years ago I had a Sigma 100-300 mm f4. I thought I'd enjoy the extra range, but I soon found that I didn't like it and preferred the slightly shorter but faster 70-200 2.8
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,517
204
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
The 100-400mm II has been very heavily discounted for a while now. Maybe it's to be more competitive but is there the possibility that a III is on the cards?
I'd be surprised, the mkII isn't all that old and it's a main stay of most pro/semi pro's bag. Over the year's I've seen more 24-70/2.8 and 100-400 LIS combos in pro's bags than any other lens combos. Go to a wildlife workshop and nearly every photographer is using them. The MK1 (regardless of what is said on forums) was a greatly loved and used lens. Canon pretty much got the mkII spot on in terms of rectifying the mk1's weaknesses. So I can't see that a mkIII will offer much in the way of an upgrade. The mkII already has one of the finest IS units available. Its AF is very fast and accurate and it's image Quality is excellent.
If a mkIII is in the offering it'll probably a bit like the 70-200 f2.8 LIS III...coatings and shell paint shade....
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,517
204
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
1000mm ff equivalent reach w/o the teleconverter in a hand holdable lens. This will be interesting for sports and wildlife when paired with the new micro 4/3 camera. If one doesn’t need large prints (and only a few really do), this will be a great combination. For me, I would have to completely give up my Canon gear to afford changing over to Olympus. That would be difficult. :unsure:
it looks like a very similar lens to the Canon 200-400 f4 LIS...in fact from a spec and function point of view it looks very similar.
 

AlanF

5DSR
Aug 16, 2012
4,668
1,173
I'd be surprised, the mkII isn't all that old and it's a main stay of most pro/semi pro's bag. Over the year's I've seen more 24-70/2.8 and 100-400 LIS combos in pro's bags than any other lens combos. Go to a wildlife workshop and nearly every photographer is using them. The MK1 (regardless of what is said on forums) was a greatly loved and used lens. Canon pretty much got the mkII spot on in terms of rectifying the mk1's weaknesses. So I can't see that a mkIII will offer much in the way of an upgrade. The mkII already has one of the finest IS units available. Its AF is very fast and accurate and it's image Quality is excellent.
If a mkIII is in the offering it'll probably a bit like the 70-200 f2.8 LIS III...coatings and shell paint shade....
I see a lot of 100-400mm IIs every week in the UK on my regular birding outings, but also a fair number of Nikkor 200-500s and the150-600mm. But, in Florida this month, it was overwhelmingly the Canon.
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
157
119
117
Williamsport, PA
I don't think Canon have released a truly BAD lens regardless of target market for a long time. Their cheapest EF lens, the 50mm f/1.8 STM is a superb optical performer for example.
I agree. But just maintain the high quality. There have been some kit zooms that are not all that good. I would like to see the non-L kit lenses to be very good performers. Also make sure there are no more noisy arc form drives ever again and the front elements don't rotate. These are small annoyances that if resolved would take the Canon brand to the next level for everyone. With new manufacturing methods etc. this should not be an issue for all lenses made.
 

Hector1970

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 22, 2012
972
63
It's not equivalent reach, it's equivalent field of view. MFT is a low mpx sensor with 3.3µ pixels. The 5DSR has pixels that are only 24% bigger. So, in practice the equivalent reach of 400mm of the Olympus is 496mm on the 5DSR and 500mm with the TC is 624mm. So, a Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm on the 5DSR would give nearly the same long telephoto reach and twice the field of view.

Edit - oops I meant to put the Olympus post in the Olympus thread. I'll repost there. Apologies.
Could you explain that a little further?
Say the 5DSR had a 600mm lens and an Olympus had a 300mm lens and both took a photograph. Uncropped would they look the same (in general) but you could crop more on the 5DSR and have a usuable photo. Or is it different to that.?
 

Hector1970

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 22, 2012
972
63
I Put this lens beside Nikon P1000 mega zoom point and shoot. nowhere near to any professional camera
Olympus lens are typically very good. The small sensor is the general problem but you can still take very good images (but you need to get it right in camera as processing and cropping are more limited).
 

Pape

EOS 80D
Dec 31, 2018
124
31
more like you putting 300mm f2,8 and 2x tele converter to full frame camera and it looks pretty same than olympus with 300mm i believe?
600mm canon lens gives very high qualtiy pic with 5dsr, olympus lense should be lot sharper to deliver same quality pic and i doubt its case
 
Last edited:

AlanF

5DSR
Aug 16, 2012
4,668
1,173
Could you explain that a little further?
Say the 5DSR had a 600mm lens and an Olympus had a 300mm lens and both took a photograph. Uncropped would they look the same (in general) but you could crop more on the 5DSR and have a usuable photo. Or is it different to that.?
The relative resolution ("reach") depends on the size of pixels in the sensor as well as focal length of the lens. The MFT 20 mpx sensor has 3.3µ pixels, half the size of the 6.6µ pixels of of the 20mpx 1DXII, so a 300mm on the MFT has the same resolution as 600mm on the FF (all else being equal). The 5DSR has 4.1µ pixels, and so a 300mm*(4.1*3.3) ie 373mm lens on it would resolve as well as as 300mm on the MFT. And an 80mpxl FF sensor would have exactly the same size pixels as the MFT and a 300mm lens on it would resolve as well as 300mm on the MFT.
 

asl

EOS M50
Aug 23, 2016
34
1
I would like to see a aps-c L tele lense 400 F/4 (or something), probably not gonna happen, but IMO it would make sense (more so now for the RF mount than before). I think many for wild life are dragging around more glass than needed.
 

koenkooi

EOS 80D
Feb 25, 2015
180
64
I would like to see a aps-c L tele lense 400 F/4 (or something), probably not gonna happen, but IMO it would make sense (more so now for the RF mount than before). I think many for wild life are dragging around more glass than needed.
The 400/5.6 lens hasn't seen a refresh since it was introduced in 1993(!). If a refresh can add IS and keep the current price point, that would be a very nice lens.
 
Reactions: Pape